• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

would you support this gun control compromise?

Do you support Luna's gun control compromise?

  • Total voters
    20
Ikari said:
I fear your zeal to deflect has caused you to stop making any amount of sense.
Click to expand...

In order for that to be true, he would have to have, at some point before, actually made any kind of rational sense. Can you point to any instance in which he has made enough sense that a line can be drawn after that point to indicate where he has ceased to do so?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You have enough trust and faith in them to consistently object to my suggestion that the most dangerous of them ought to be permanently removed from free society.

Either that or else you are flat-out lying (and I consider this the more likely case) when you pretend that any part of your tyrannical NannY-statist position on the subject is motivated in any way by any vestige of concern for public safety.

If you truly cared about public safety, then you would agree with me about how the most dangerous of convicted criminals should be treated, and you would agree with me in being solidly opposed to putting any obstacles in the way of allowing honest people the tools with which to defend themselves against these criminals.

It is clear what side you are on.
Click to expand...

I don’t know, Bob. I get what you are saying and the simplicity of the concept is appealing. But, there are times people shouldn’t be locked up forever but still shouldn’t be entitled to own a gun upon release.

For example, a guy goes into a gas station with a gun and holds up the place. He gets the money, leaves, nobody is hurt. Police catch him, he doesn’t resist, he goes to jail. Now, personally, I think he DESERVES to spend the rest of his life in prison. But if life in prison is what was dished out for him then where is the incentive in not killing all the witnesses or firing on the cops when they come for him?

There are criminals who use the threat of violence to rob but would never actually kill. Hell, on youtube there are plenty examples of unarmed people fighting back against armed robbers who eventually just give up and run away, without shooting anyone. By making such crimes life in prison or death, rather than say 5,10, or 20 years, they have more incentive to kill. So I don’t think it is in the public’s best interest to always lock them away forever. But I sure as hell don’t think they should be allowed to have a gun when they get out.
 
wolv67 said:
100 million guns lying around leading to an insane homicide rate is
Click to expand...
Homocide rate
Venezuela 67
United States 4.7

Venezuela has banned guns. Banning guns do not prevent criminals from getting them.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
...If you truly cared about public safety, then you would agree with me about how the most dangerous of convicted criminals should be treated....
Click to expand...

putting all violent felons away for life or just killing them, is not how a free society operates.

that's how North Korea, China, Iran, and Nazi Germany does things.
 
Sarcogito said:
I don’t know, Bob. I get what you are saying and the simplicity of the concept is appealing. But, there are times people shouldn’t be locked up forever but still shouldn’t be entitled to own a gun upon release.....
Click to expand...

many crimes do not warrant execution or life-imprisonment, but still do warrant forbidding them from being able to possess a gun once they are out of prison.

they can of course appeal to get their gun rights back, and thousands of people have done so.

this concept is good & fair.
 
You needed more choices, my choice would be NO, because no means no. I will make a compromise with anti-gun advocates, don't try to take mine away and I won't use mine on you.
 
Thunder said:
most Americans understand that the Right to Bear Arms, is not absolute.
Click to expand...

And they are wrong.

There is no mention of "infringing" on Free Speech, or other rights. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

So yes, it IS an absolute right.

1776
They have gatling guns and so do I.
They have cannons, and so do I.

2008
I have pistols and shotguns, they have lasers on drones...........

See the problem.......???????
 
Thunder said:
that is incorrect.

felons appeal to get back their firearm rights all the time, and often win them back. thousands have done so.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have to petition to get the exercise back, it's a right and unless you are currently being punished for a crime through which you have infringed upon the rights of another, it should be assumed free exercise. It should be the opposite. If the government wants to punish an individual further, past the punishment times, then it needs to present ITS case. This is exactly backwards from what should occur in a free Republic.
 
Ikari said:
They shouldn't have to petition to get the exercise back....
Click to expand...

loosing their gun-rights is part of their punishment.

and yes, they should have to convince a court that they can now be trusted with a firearm.
 
Thunder said:
loosing their gun-rights is part of their punishment.

and yes, they should have to convince a court that they can now be trusted with a firearm.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. And the punishment period ENDS. At which point, they should have free exercise of all their rights once again. It is not the individual who is restricted, it is the State. The State must prove its point, the State must demonstrate threat; otherwise the individual in unencumbered.
 
Camlon said:
Homocide rate
Venezuela 67
United States 4.7

Venezuela has banned guns. Banning guns do not prevent criminals from getting them.
Click to expand...

Not at all a good argument.
Comparing us to some banana republic is insulting..
But do compare us to most any European nation....or Singapore or Japan or New Zealand....more sense...a fairer point...
 
Thunder said:
putting all violent felons away for life or just killing them, is not how a free society operates.

that's how North Korea, China, Iran, and Nazi Germany does things.
Click to expand...

I doubt if you are fooling anyone but yourself with this silly game. You keep alternating between talking about “child rapists and murderers”—criminals of a sort that certainly do merit either the death penalty or life with no possibility of parole—and “all felons” or “all violent felons”; so that when I say that the former ought to be permanently removed from free society, you can paint me as wanting the same treatment for shoplifters and bar brawlers and other more petty criminals.
 
Thunder said:
many crimes do not warrant execution or life-imprisonment, but still do warrant forbidding them from being able to possess a gun once they are out of prison.

they can of course appeal to get their gun rights back, and thousands of people have done so.

this concept is good & fair.
Click to expand...

Nothing good or fair or just about what you propose.

If a punishment is to be finite, then that means there is to be a point at which the person has “payed his debt to society”, and should not be further punished.

What you advocate is inherently unjust—allowing one to be punished for the rest of his life for a crime that does not merit that level of punishment.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
...What you advocate is inherently unjust—allowing one to be punished for the rest of his life for a crime that does not merit that level of punishment.
Click to expand...

you are being dishonest about my posts.

Folks who loose their voting rights, gun rights, etc etc after leaving prison & fulfilling their parole regulations, can always appeal to the State to get back their rights. 3,300 people in Washington State alone have done just that. That is just and is due process.
 
earthworm said:
Not at all a good argument.
Comparing us to some banana republic is insulting..
But do compare us to most any European nation....or Singapore or Japan or New Zealand....more sense...a fairer point...
Click to expand...

In fact I can't because US has a natural higher crime rate. For instance take a look in the 70s, and the gap between US and Europe was even larger. Back then there was less guns per capita. It is because US has different demographics. In Europe, 95% of the population is white, while in the US 70% of the population is white. In the white states of America the murder rate is not that high.

Of course comparing against Venezuela is wrong too, but it proves my point that there are other more important factors than gun legislation.

Vermot: 1.1
Montana: 2.6
North Dakota: 1.5
South Dakota: 2.8
Maine: 1.8
New Hampshire: 1.0
 
Camlon said:
In fact I can't because US has a natural higher crime rate. For instance take a look in the 70s, and the gap between US and Europe was even larger. Back then there was less guns per capita. It is because US has different demographics. In Europe, 95% of the population is white, while in the US 70% of the population is white. In the white states of America the murder rate is not that high.

Of course comparing against Venezuela is wrong too, but it proves my point that there are other more important factors than gun legislation.

Vermot: 1.1
Montana: 2.6
North Dakota: 1.5
South Dakota: 2.8
Maine: 1.8
New Hampshire: 1.0
Click to expand...

by 1998, white gun violence in both the UK and continental Europe had surpassed the rate of white gun violence in the USA
 
Thunder said:
how about this for a compromise:

end background checks for rifles/shotguns.......but require background checks, 10-round limit for magazines, and limit purchases to one per month, for ALL handgun purchases.
Click to expand...

Seems more like a silly plan then a compromise.
 
DVSentinel said:
You needed more choices, my choice would be NO, because no means no. I will make a compromise with anti-gun advocates, don't try to take mine away and I won't use mine on you.
Click to expand...

This is indeed the only compromise that we ever ought to consider making on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Lokiate said:
That's basically how it already is. Only problem is that only sales through registered dealers can be effectively regulated. When it comes to private unregistered citizens, how exactly is this to be regulated? It's a pipe dream at best.
Click to expand...

It's very easy, we do it the same way we handle car registrations. The person to whom the weapon is registered is 100% legally responsible for the weapon, no matter who uses it, unless reported stolen. That leaves the responsibility for the background check and the change in registration to the current registered owner. You sell your gun to someone without a background check and without a change in registration and they go out and shoot up a movie theater, whose ass is on the line? Yours.

You wouldn't have many people not doing it the right way.
 
Objective-J said:
I will never be able to understand how a person convinces themselves this is logical and reality based rational. Its broken logic.

no guns outside ones home?! Im very thankful on a national level nothing like this will ever come to pass.
Click to expand...

Seriously, how many people have firing ranges in their homes? Oh crap, I can't take my gun to the range because it's illegal to transport it outside of my house! :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
by 1998, white gun violence in both the UK and continental Europe had surpassed the rate of white gun violence in the USA
Click to expand...

Why does the color of the guns matter? And who keeps those sort of stats? The crayola company?
 
Thunder said:
haa!! funny. ;)
Click to expand...

I was hoping we could stay clear of the usual argument about which color of guns tend to produce the most crime - the white ones or the dark ones. Although I guess in these discussions it is inevitable it is going to come up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom